Thank you for reminding me that I picked up one of these lenses as a thrift store impulse buy but have never gotten around to putting it though its paces and also reminding me why I don't usually watch videos.

Crikey! That video could have been half as long - he does go on - and on, repeating himself.

He does seem to like being the centre of attention and could have condensed it to half the time and provided more information.
However he has got me wondering which Super Tak 135mm F3.5 I have, 4 or 5 elements. Mine has F4 on the aperture list.....does that mean 5 glass elements?
The forum reviews are great and probably have an answer for me but my addled brain is not performing too well, maybe as a result of admiring his home made outfit.

It also says something about coarse or fine ribs. That one has coarse. I have the exact same one. Serial 847644

I don't think there is a lot of difference:

5

4.

It also goes on to say on the 2nd review listing (of the 2 that are there) that the numeral 4 for F4 is never on the lens for 4 elements but the first review listing says "may" be on the 5 element lens.
You are right, it's probably not important, it just niggled me, having the numeral 4 on mine. My s/n is 735349.

I'll just say it: I hate this guy. His voice is boring as hell , for someone who describes himself as an "angry" photographer his voice is utterly devoid of passion*. He has a few bizarre theories on how lenses work and how exotic glass types should be avoided in lenses**, he sensationalized the radioactivity of the takumar 50mm f/1.4 lenses and demonstrated it in a manner that showed complete disregard for accuracy, and is incapable of growing a beard.

* the Boring photographer would be more appropriate.
** in the same way a stopped clock is right twice in a day, a crackpot can get things right every now and then. However, due to improvements in glass manufacturing processes and optical design his concerns are invalid...he has done NOTHING to amend his remarks and educate his followers on these developments. I have seen news papers publish errata on mistakes made in astrology charts even though the general populace knows the practice of astrology is a steaming crock of bovine excrement.